Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cwmgelli Cemetery


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Cwmgelli Cemetery

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Run of the mill cemetery that fails WP:GNG. No significant details I could find. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - part is a war grave, but these are relatively common in municipal graveyards in Wales and therefore I don't think shows notability. I'm not seeing anything much else. JMWt (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I cannot find good enough references to indicate that this passes WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 18:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Change !vote to Merge to Treboeth as a WP:ATD: there is still salvageable information and it deserves a mention even if it should not have its own article. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 16:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: merging is now impractical because a lot of information has been added. The article just passes WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 18:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge with Treboeth - Per the above, nothing makes this a significant cemetary. Page is an orphan, and would be a permastub as there is insufficient information to write an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I put this up there as a starter. I didn't realise that a page had to be created in such a fully rendered form.  I've added more detail and will continue to do so in the hope that the page remains.  Thanks for you help with this. Orange Sorbet (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, no need to be sorry. Many pages start small and per WP:DEMOLISH, we shouldn't be deleting articles just because the article is new and unfinished. The concern here, however, is that there is not really anything that can be said about the subject that is notable for an article. It might be better to put a few lines about the cemetery in the Treboeth article, which does not mention it. I'll happily change my !vote to "merge" on that basis.  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep (or Merge if not enough content for a separate article) - It is on the register of historic parks and gardens so seems notable enough, and more sources can be found by searching alternative spellings - cwmgelly, or cwm-gelli. EdwardUK (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have a policy that says being a registered historical park and garden is sufficient indication of notability for inclusion, but I'd be interested to see precedence or policy if there is one. JMWt (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The register was given statutory status in 2022, before which it was unlikely to have been considered as indicating notability. It usually means there will be descriptions on the Cadw and Coflein websites similar to those given for listed buildings, and though this is no guarantee of notability, these can be helpful for passing GNG, but this would still depend on what other sources are added. EdwardUK (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * that seems to me to be contradicting what you previously said It is on the register of historic parks and gardens so seems notable enough. If you are not offering presence on the register as a sign of notability, what did you mean please? As far as I can tell, listed buildings are not presumed notable by WP:NBUILD so I can't really see why a park or other urban open space would be under a similar designation. JMWt (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Having checked the sources again Merge may be the better option. my original statement was not worded very well – the so seems notable enough should have been at the end. It is more that I think a heritage listing indicates that a site is not non-notable – the content is worth mentioning, so even if the other sources do not provide enough for it to be a separate article it could still be used as part of a wider article (in this case the nearest town/settlement), rather than deleting. A brief search suggested the cemetery is mentioned in various other sources though on closer examination these are generally about the people buried there so would probably not pass the "No inherited notability" guideline. EdwardUK (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. WP:GEOFEAT: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into Treboeth and redirect, although I'd favour leaving it at least a few days to give its authors a chance to find new sources. It is only a Grade II listed garden, and it seems likely that the Grade I/II*/II listing categories for parks and gardens are modelled on those of listed buildings. There may not be an established rule, but my hunch is that articles on Grade I listed buildings would usually survive a deletion nomination, and those on Grade II listed buildings usually would not, unless there was other evidence of notability. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listed garden so clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT. That goes for all categories of listing, not just Grade I (and yes, gardens are listed at I, II* and II just like buildings). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems perverse that WP:GEOFEAT specifies that listed parks and gardens are presumed to be notable but that listed buildings are not. However, this is not the place to debate that issue. I don't object to retaining the article on that basis. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. It specifies that all heritage listed man-made features are notable. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. That clearly includes buildings and has been held to include buildings at pretty much all AfDs on the subject (usually with the exception of editors who'd like to delete as many articles as possible). -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion seems divided between those wanting to Keep this article and those advocating a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Treboeth as things stand but keep if one more source with indepth coverage is found. Just falls short of passing the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG. The following ought to count as one of the sources towards notability, namely, a 670 word report on the cemetery's opening in the Swansea Journal and South Wales Liberal (28 Sept. 1895 page 4). The article details and comments on the site's cost, acreage, capacity, drainage, the lie of the land, has a brief description of the chapel, proposed tree planting & flower borders. The article notes that it is "the first public cemetery in Wales in which no portion is consecrated", adding to its notability. The listing at CADW should also count so we have two sources providing independent, reliable, indepth coverage. There's shorter pieces on the planning and financing of the cemetery in The Cardiff Times (17 Aug. 1889) and the South Wales Daily News (17 Aug. 1892), but that's all I've managed to find.  Rupples (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Spent some time thinking about this and after further consideration I'm changing my opinion from merge to keep. I didn't properly examine the WP:GEOFEAT case put forward by Necrothesp. The CADW website states that Historic parks and gardens are part of Wales’s national identity. They enrich the texture and pattern of our landscapes and form a valuable record of social, cultural and economic change. . . . Registration identifies parks and gardens which are of special historic interest to Wales. . . . These nationally important places provide a connection with the lives and ambitions of past generations. A search of CADW listings here  under asset type 'Historic Parks and Gardens' with site type 'cemetery' revealed only 6 listed cemeteries for the whole of Wales. The cemetery is notable and sources are adequate to write a short but informative, encyclopedic article. Rupples (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, and the fact that this article is now bigger than Treboeth, making a merger impractical.  Dank Jae  15:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, changing by view from merge, in view of the expansion of the article. In particular, the paragraph about consecration, which reflects the tensions between the established church and Non-conformist groups which led to the Welsh Church Act 1914 – but I'd like a modern source for this. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.